So they are illegal to POSSESS in California? Then that would lead me to believe that if a cop stopped you on a highway with an "assault rifle" in your car, you’re going to jail. The charge would be possession of an assault rifle. Therefore it is not "grandfathered" in. I might be missing something, but that was the quote.

They are NOT illegal to posses, IF you owned them prior to the ban, but here is the rub. They can certainly be confiscated. Then the owner has to prove they were legally owned, hard to do. Then if you do prove they were legal, you don't get them back because they were destroyed, but you will be compensated for them. Theo ther rub, now you can't buy new ones, it's a felony to bring them across state lines.
I never travel around Kalif w/ a high cap, just use the legal 10rd, That way, when a cop that knows little about the law stops me, no issue. Much like ObamCare, we won't know what is in the new law until they pass it, but it will not be good & it will be permanent, that is for sure.
BTW, PBO can EO the mags out of existance, He does not need a new law. Just task the ATF to reqrite current laws, He has done it w/ sales reporting of assault style weapons in the border states do to the trumped up Fast&Furious BS. He could & probably will do something like that w/ high cap mags.

__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".

They are NOT illegal to posses, IF you owned them prior to the ban, but here is the rub. They can certainly be confiscated. Then the owner has to prove they were legally owned, hard to do. Then if you do prove they were legal, you don't get them back because they were destroyed, but you will be compensated for them. Theo ther rub, now you can't buy new ones, it's a felony to bring them across state lines.
I never travel around Kalif w/ a high cap, just use the legal 10rd, That way, when a cop that knows little about the law stops me, no issue. Much like ObamCare, we won't know what is in the new law until they pass it, but it will not be good & it will be permanent, that is for sure.
BTW, PBO can EO the mags out of existance, He does not need a new law. Just task the ATF to reqrite current laws, He has done it w/ sales reporting of assault style weapons in the border states do to the trumped up Fast&Furious BS. He could & probably will do something like that w/ high cap mags.

Thanks for the clarification on that. However, my original question has yet to be answered, and I'm not necessarily aiming this at you Fred. If [B]possession[B] is illegal, then how is any "assault weapon" grandfathered in? Said another way, how can you keep your legally purchased "AW" if it is illegal to possess?
If the libs are talking about making possession illegal, then they are talking about making everyone who owns an "AW" a criminal over night, no grandfather clause there.

CA enacted a ban on buying new ones (buying, importing, manufacturing, selling, etc) after the date the law took effect, but allowed individuals to keep the existing ones owned before the ban.

Yes, the burden is on LE to show any hi-cap mags in an individual's possession were obtained after the ban took effect. (Think catching someone in a "street corner mag deal", with money & mags changing hands ... buying/selling at gun shows ... selling them across the state line, etc).

Also, being in possession of a new hi-cap mag that was manufactured after the law took effect would be hard to explain, as would possessing one for a pistol that wasn't even in production before the ban took effect.

I've been also been told by at least a couple of gun companies (during armorer classes) that in some cases they might be able to help LE identify the production period of some magazines (due to manufacturing changes, markings, vendors used, etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by pisc1024

Then that would lead me to believe that if a cop stopped you on a highway with an "assault rifle" in your car, you’re going to jail.

Only if it's unlawful for that individual to possess that firearm.

CA allowed existing owners of what were considered "assault weapons" to register them with the state so they could continue to own them. Naturally, this didn't apply to persons who were prohibited from owning/possessing firearms, or persons who owned firearms that were already unlawful to posses under other laws. (There was some confusion, to put it mildly, about extensions of the original registration period ... . but that's a story for another day.)

If someone lawfully possesses what CA has defined as an "assault weapon", then any cop seeing one in someone's possession during a traffic stop (or during any other situation where the cop has lawful reason to be, and see what he/she suspects may be an "assault weapon"), can easily check the serial number against the state's DOJ database and confirm either lawful ownership or unlawful possession. (Yes, if the computer system is down at that particular moment, it may complicate or delay things a bit.)

Also, registered owners of CA assault weapons receive an original registration for the specific weapon from CA DOJ, which they can show to LE.

If someone missed the deadline to apply for a registration for their weapon several years ago, or simply decided not to do so (for whatever reason), then their weapon isn't lawfully registered to them with the state as an "assault weapon" and would be considered contraband.

The "off-list" lowers and assembled rifles made with "bullet buttons" have been selling pretty strongly in CA, but that category of semiauto rifles may be addressed by legislation at some point. Dunno if/when, or how it will be worded and implemented. I'm retired, and don't own an off-list rifle, myself, so I haven't exactly been keeping up on it.

I know a number of guys who have been buying off list lowers, though, so I imagine I'll hear further info if/when something is passed and chaptered into law.

I believe her because it's the same thing she said
last time. If you already own it or it was manufactured
before the ban it's legal to own.
That's what "not retroactive" means.

What the law, "if passed" actually will do
is not known. I can only comment on the facts I know now.

In Florida you could still own a pre ban AR.
Still own a pre ban hi cap mag and buy or sell them during the 94 to 04 ban years.

It sounds like you won't be able to buy pre ban item like last time, of course how they
can prove whether or not you owned them before the ban is another issue.

Regardless I'm not parting with anything
that may be banned. And if everyone sticks
together on that they will have to cave.

Unless they plan on jailing millions of law abiding Americans. Here is what she said again, why would she mention the words "retroactive" & "prospectively" if it was to
be an outright ban on possession?

“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively butprospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,” Feinstein said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” during a discussion about guns following Friday’s deadly mass shooting as a Connecticut school.

ret·ro·ac·tive(rtr-ktv) adj. Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment

No, it's not, she said clearly it will NOT be retroactive.
Meet the press last Sunday quote:

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively,but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets," she said. "There will be a bill."

You can read a few more stories on a few more sites and find that she really wants them all gone, now. She might not get that, but let me tell you (having worked in a democratic Senator's office), I have seen their notes in the margins of proposed bills and what they want is a complete ban on anything and everything as it relates to firearms.

This is no secret, the information has been out there for decades. They water it down for the press - sometimes - but their goal is to have a complete ban on firearm possession by civilians.

__________________
Doug

"In St. Louis, armed Homeland Security agents monitored Tea Party members protesting the IRS. Good idea. When people think their government is out to get them, the best response is to send the government out to get them." -Fred Thompson

I believe her because it's the same thing she said
last time. If you already own it or it was manufactured
before the ban it's legal to own.
That's what "not retroactive" means.

What the law, "if passed" actually will do
is not known. I can only comment on the facts I know now.

In Florida you could still own a pre ban AR.
Still own a pre ban hi cap mag and buy or sell them during the 94 to 04 ban years.

It sounds like you won't be able to buy pre ban item like last time, of course how they
can prove whether or not you owned them before the ban is another issue.

Regardless I'm not parting with anything
that may be banned. And if everyone sticks
together on that they will have to cave.

Unless they plan on jailing millions of law abiding Americans. Here is what she said again, why would she mention the words "retroactive" & "prospectively" if it was to
be an outright ban on possession?

“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively butprospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,” Feinstein said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” during a discussion about guns following Friday’s deadly mass shooting as a Connecticut school.

ret·ro·ac·tive(rtr-ktv) adj. Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment

Wow, thanks for the schooling, I had no idea what retroactive meant. I guess you learn something new every day.

I guess you failed to read the part of the quote you just posted where she said "It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession." That is the part that I think you are missing. If something is illegal to possess, like crack, marijuana or LSD, then by definition there IS NO GRANDFATHER CLASE! With that it might do you some good to actually listen to what our reps are saying so you don't get caught with your pants down. I am fully aware of how things were in the 94 AWB days, I lived through them. That ban did not have a prohibition on POSSESSING the guns that were made prior. Her quote sounds to me like they are going to try and ban possession out right. I could be wrong though.
pos•ses•sion (p-zshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or fact of possessing.
b. The state of being possessed.
2. Something owned or possessed.
3. possessions Wealth or property.4. Law Actual holding or occupancy with or without rightful ownership.

CA enacted a ban on buying new ones (buying, importing, manufacturing, selling, etc) after the date the law took effect, but allowed individuals to keep the existing ones owned before the ban.

Yes, the burden is on LE to show any hi-cap mags in an individual's possession were obtained after the ban took effect. (Think catching someone in a "street corner mag deal", with money & mags changing hands ... buying/selling at gun shows ... selling them across the state line, etc).

Also, being in possession of a new hi-cap mag that was manufactured after the law took effect would be hard to explain, as would possessing one for a pistol that wasn't even in production before the ban took effect.

I've been also been told by at least a couple of gun companies (during armorer classes) that in some cases they might be able to help LE identify the production period of some magazines (due to manufacturing changes, markings, vendors used, etc).

Only if it's unlawful for that individual to possess that firearm.

CA allowed existing owners of what were considered "assault weapons" to register them with the state so they could continue to own them. Naturally, this didn't apply to persons who were prohibited from owning/possessing firearms, or persons who owned firearms that were already unlawful to posses under other laws. (There was some confusion, to put it mildly, about extensions of the original registration period ... . but that's a story for another day.)

If someone lawfully possesses what CA has defined as an "assault weapon", then any cop seeing one in someone's possession during a traffic stop (or during any other situation where the cop has lawful reason to be, and see what he/she suspects may be an "assault weapon"), can easily check the serial number against the state's DOJ database and confirm either lawful ownership or unlawful possession. (Yes, if the computer system is down at that particular moment, it may complicate or delay things a bit.)

Also, registered owners of CA assault weapons receive an original registration for the specific weapon from CA DOJ, which they can show to LE.

If someone missed the deadline to apply for a registration for their weapon several years ago, or simply decided not to do so (for whatever reason), then their weapon isn't lawfully registered to them with the state as an "assault weapon" and would be considered contraband.

The "off-list" lowers and assembled rifles made with "bullet buttons" have been selling pretty strongly in CA, but that category of semiauto rifles may be addressed by legislation at some point. Dunno if/when, or how it will be worded and implemented. I'm retired, and don't own an off-list rifle, myself, so I haven't exactly been keeping up on it.

I know a number of guys who have been buying off list lowers, though, so I imagine I'll hear further info if/when something is passed and chaptered into law.

I thought we were all on the same page.
Possesion AFTER the ban, as in you came to aquire a banned item after the ban. Keep your receipts to prove when you bought whatever is banned. Again, retroactive wouldnot be in the language if it was illigal to possess after the ban.

I'm not Fienstien, go ask her about the wording if you don't like it, I, like you am expressing my opinion of what she means. If you don't agree
that's teriffic. Good for you. Freedom of speech at work

SARDG knows what the libs mean. I think she is just tired of hearing the same wrong descriptions over the last week, as am I.

Calling a magazine a "clip" is like calling a revolver a pistol.

Yes that's true, we have exchanged PM's so I know she
is a well informed shooter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredj338

SO you want to believe a self serving liberal? Really? Trust me, they will go for as much as they can get this time. They have emotion on their side & that turns a lot of female voters heads.

You make a good point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougader

You can read a few more stories on a few more sites and find that she really wants them all gone, now. She might not get that, but let me tell you (having worked in a democratic Senator's office), I have seen their notes in the margins of proposed bills and what they want is a complete ban on anything and everything as it relates to firearms.

This is no secret, the information has been out there for decades. They water it down for the press - sometimes - but their goal is to have a complete ban on firearm possession by civilians.

I believe that. I guess all we can do is contact our rep's
& senators to voice our opinions. Join the NRA if you're
not a member.

Thanks for the clarification on that. However, my original question has yet to be answered, and I'm not necessarily aiming this at you Fred. If [B]possession[B] is illegal, then how is any "assault weapon" grandfathered in? Said another way, how can you keep your legally purchased "AW" if it is illegal to possess?
If the libs are talking about making possession illegal, then they are talking about making everyone who owns an "AW" a criminal over night, no grandfather clause there.

The govt can do anything it wants. They could grandfather all current AW. THey could go the route of Australia & full on ban on ownership, just demand a turn over & they will give you some paultry amount of money. IT could happen. I doubt it, but it could. There is a constitutional issue of illegal seizure & forfiture of property, but they have gotten around that with current drug laws.
Mags, they could certainly ban them, wouldn't even need a new law, just decree it so for public safety reasons. Mere posession could be a felony, much like marijuana used to be. Anything could happen, we'll just have to wait & see, but IMO, better to spend some money now if you want something, if this stuff is banned, grandfathered in or not, you can't buy it going forward.
Yeah, another thing I see happening will be a ban on ALL gunshow sales unless they go thru a FFL process. Again, all BS, when you consider the top ATF guys are running guns to Mexico for cash.
There is a long standing reason why ALL liberals want guns banned. You can not be a tyrannical govt if the people can't fight back. How are you going to enact 75% tax rates & force people into public transportation, global warming taxes, etc if they rebel? Rebelling w/o guns is a loooong hard road, just look @ Syria today.

__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".

You know, this already happened in New York city. First they had everyone register the "evil" guns, promising - of course - that the lists would never be for confiscation. Then, some years later they banned all the semi-auto rifles and cops actually went door-to-door making sure all those guns were out of the city.

There is no reason they couldn't try this if they have support in both the House and the Senate.

__________________
Doug

"In St. Louis, armed Homeland Security agents monitored Tea Party members protesting the IRS. Good idea. When people think their government is out to get them, the best response is to send the government out to get them." -Fred Thompson

The govt can do anything it wants. They could grandfather all current AW. THey could go the route of Australia & full on ban on ownership, just demand a turn over & they will give you some paultry amount of money. IT could happen. I doubt it, but it could. There is a constitutional issue of illegal seizure & forfiture of property, but they have gotten around that with current drug laws.
Mags, they could certainly ban them, wouldn't even need a new law, just decree it so for public safety reasons. Mere posession could be a felony, much like marijuana used to be. Anything could happen, we'll just have to wait & see, but IMO, better to spend some money now if you want something, if this stuff is banned, grandfathered in or not, you can't buy it going forward.
Yeah, another thing I see happening will be a ban on ALL gunshow sales unless they go thru a FFL process. Again, all BS, when you consider the top ATF guys are running guns to Mexico for cash.
There is a long standing reason why ALL liberals want guns banned. You can not be a tyrannical govt if the people can't fight back. How are you going to enact 75% tax rates & force people into public transportation, global warming taxes, etc if they rebel? Rebelling w/o guns is a loooong hard road, just look @ Syria today.

I agree 100%. I guess my point was that I saw it as 'ole ******stine speaking out of both sides of her mouth. On the one hand she was saying that it would be a ban on possession, but the other said that it wouldn't be retroactive. Those two things seem mutually exclusive to me. I guess I just missed something, not a big deal. To the OP, sorry I got this thread off topic.

No. I already own plenty of high-capacity magazines, and there are no circumstances that could arise under which I would surrender such magazines.

For the sake of argument, if I were limited only to 10 round magazines then I would consider the alternatives. One of the biggest strengths of 9mm is certainly magazine capacity.

One alternative would likely be some form of 5" .45ACP with which I would only use +P ammunition (because otherwise .45ACP is just far too slow IMO.)

So... yes, the government in Australia did do a bit of rounding up of weapons and magazines. But anyone going door-to-door here in America demanding that we hand over our weapons isn't likely to have a very long life expectancy.

I don't see it effecting me (LEO) but if I was somehow forced to dump my standard capacity magazines I don't think I would stay with my G17/26.

I've been eyeballing a Springfield WTL.

__________________
Someone brought that up at a shooting I was involved in. I said he should have stopped. They said "what about Garner v. Tennessee."? I told them, " his name ain't Garner and we ain't in Tennessee!"

You know, this already happened in New York city. First they had everyone register the "evil" guns, promising - of course - that the lists would never be for confiscation. Then, some years later they banned all the semi-auto rifles and cops actually went door-to-door making sure all those guns were out of the city.

There is no reason they couldn't try this if they have support in both the House and the Senate.

That's some serious BS. I guess don't register
anything you don't want to lose. Better to
hide it then not have it. Buy 1 legal gun
to register like a G26 or 27.

The only good thing the 9mm has going is capacity. Take that away and why carry a 9mm. 10+1 means 45acp or.40 If I only can have 10 why would I want 10 little bullets when I can just carry 10 big bullets.

One alternative would likely be some form of 5" .45ACP with which I would only use +P ammunition (because otherwise .45ACP is just far too slow IMO.)

So... yes, the government in Australia did do a bit of rounding up of weapons and magazines. But anyone going door-to-door here in America demanding that we hand over our weapons isn't likely to have a very long life expectancy.

Funny, so now vel kills?
Reality, most, the vast majority of law abiding folks are going to give up their guns in the face of LE confiscation. After all, we are law abiding. The few that would shoot it out w/ LE would be branded terrorists by the left wing media. Their goal, all liberals, is to have total ban on guns. They chose the so called AW as the starting point because it looks menacing & 75% of the people don't know the diff between an AR & a 870. So it's their start. Then when that doesn't curb crime, it will be all handguns, then all long guns, there is no end until their is a total ban.
Guns have been with us for our entire existance as a nation. Until 1968, you could go into any store & buy anything you wanted, no background check. Own semiauto, machine gun, didn't matter. We didn't have the type of violence we have today. We didn't have the media coverage we have today. We didn't have a left wing, Nazi propaganda style media we have today. We did have fathers in almost every home. We did have discipline in every school. The problem is not guns but societal break down. I only wish LaPierre & the NRA could articulate that better. AR, Glock or single shot 12ga, it wouldn't matter when every victim is unarmed, trapped in a small space & there is only an unarmed 140# female to deal with the problem.
Can they pass anothger AWB, sure, there is a reason the media is still covering the funerals. Will they, maybe, if there is enough publci pushback & the right media coverage. I know it will be far more restrictive than the last one, again, the Libs are dumb but not stupid. They will want more teethe in it this time. So plan accordingly, something will happen & it won't be good.

__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".

So, a majority of the debate in 9mm vs 45acp comes to capacity vs power. I know there are other arguments, but that's what I hear the most. So my question is, if a 10 round magazine limit is instated, will you switch to 40sw or 45acp or stay with 9mm in handguns that can hold 10 in either caliber?

I am kind of leaning that, if I can only have 10, I might as well have the biggest 10 I can.

no... you may want to do some caliber research. .45 has no more "power" than a 9mm. About the only advantage .45 has is if the HP doesn't open up you get about 1.5mm extra over the 9. There really isn't a reason to ever carry .45 over 9mm unless you are restricted to FMJ ammo.

no... you may want to do some caliber research. .45 has no more "power" than a 9mm. About the only advantage .45 has is if the HP doesn't open up you get about 1.5mm extra over the 9. There really isn't a reason to ever carry .45 over 9mm unless you are restricted to FMJ ammo.

Sure there is. Heavier larger calibers offer greater prospect for even larger terminal wounds. Yes, you can make a 9mm expand to the same dia as an expanded 45, but it's more difficult to still get the penetration too. So while there is only a slight advantage, it is still an advantage, even the vuanted FI acknowledge that. So back to the 10+1, if you can shoot the 45 just as well, might as well have the bigger holes.

__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".